Christos Rammos, who for years championed the institutions, now accepts court rulings only when they support his own arguments.<\/p>\n
For years, he served as president of an Independent Authority with a critical institutional role. However, as time goes by, Christos Rammos seems to be moving away from institutional neutrality and adopting an increasingly political\u2014one might say\u2014rhetoric.<\/p>\n
His most recent public statements are not limited to criticism of the government but now include direct attacks against the leadership of Justice Department, challenging its decisions when they do not align with his personal views.<\/p>\n
In his interview with \u201cEpochi,\u201d regarding the wiretapping case, the former president of ADAE argued that the judiciary \u201cis not fulfilling its constitutional role\u201d because the prosecutor of the Supreme Court did not proceed to reopen the case without new evidence.<\/p>\n
This position, however, overlooks a key fact: the case has already been examined by the highest prosecutorial authority, which reached specific conclusions. Plain and simple.
Instead of legally challenging these conclusions, Mr. Rammos chooses to dismiss them outright.<\/p>\n
The contradiction becomes even more apparent given that the former head of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority cites a single-judge court ruling as decisive, but avoids any substantive reference to the findings and rulings of the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
It is noteworthy that a man who for years emphasized the importance of institutions now appears to accept court decisions only when they support his own arguments. When the highest judicial officials reach a different conclusion, then the justice system is portrayed as problematic or inadequate.
Such a selective approach to institutions is hardly consistent with the image of a defender of the rule of law that he himself seeks to project.<\/p>\n
A Problematic Narrative<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/b>
Even more striking is the way in which Christos Rammos chose to take a stance on Alexandros Giotopoulos.<\/p>\n
For weeks now, he has been publicly defending the position that an 82-year-old prisoner, after nearly a quarter of a century in prison, should be treated with leniency. The same line of argument had already been put forward in May, when, in a post, he argued that a democratic state should not be \u201cvindictive and malicious\u201d and characterized \u201ccriminal populism\u201d to those who demanded that the convicted leader of \u201c17 November\u201d remain in prison.<\/p>\n
In his latest statement, he returns to the same line of reasoning, but also draws a parallel with Stylianos Pattakos, arguing that even a key figure of the dictatorship was released from prison on health grounds.<\/p>\n
This choice raised legitimate questions. The invocation of two completely different historical cases, with different legal and political contexts, creates the impression of a media \u201cmixer,\u201d in which terrorism, dictatorship, and surveillance are conflated to serve a single political narrative.<\/p>\n
No one disputes that every citizen, even the most severely convicted criminal, has rights protected by the constitution and international conventions. The same applies to the right to publicly criticize judicial decisions.
However, institutional criticism is one thing, and the wholesale disparagement of the highest judicial rulings whenever they do not confirm a political position is quite another.<\/p>\n
Christos Rammos now appears to be applying a double standard to institutions: he invokes the rule of law to bolster his arguments, yet he challenges the decisions of the highest judicial bodies when they lead to different conclusions. For someone who served in a top Independent Authority, this contradiction is hard to overlook.<\/p>\n
Institutions, after all, do not operate selectively. Either you trust them as a whole or you question them as a whole. Using them only when they support your position ultimately undermines the very argument for defending the rule of law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Christos Rammos, who for years championed the institutions, now accepts court rulings only when they support his own …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13391,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13390\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/13391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.tomanifesto.gr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}